Laserfiche WebLink
<br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES <br />OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of <br />Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held on the 29th day of June 1999, at 6:30 p.m. <br /> <br />The following members were present: Mastel, Wiski, Maschka <br />and the following were absent: Goedeke, Wall <br /> <br />Council Member Maschka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> <br />Resolution No. 9659 <br />Resolution Approving a 17 foot Driveway Access Point (apron) <br />Setback Variance at 2752 Matilda Street <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Section 703.04B(4) of the Roseville City Code requires a minimum driveway <br />access point (apron) setback from a street corner of 30 feet; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Russell Dansare, property owner, (hereinafter "applicant") of the lot at 2752 <br />Matilda Street, has applied for a 17 foot variance to allow a reduction in the 30 foot required <br />setback that would enable him to retain his driveway and street access (apron) in its current <br />location; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, The City's Pavement Management Program and the reconstruction of Matilda <br />Street have prompted the variance request; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the request <br />on Wednesday, June 9,1999, and recommended (6-0) approval of the requested variance; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation on Tuesday, June 29,1999; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council made the following findings: <br /> <br />1. Section 1013.02 requires the applicant to demonstrate a physical hardship and to demonstrate <br />that no practical alternatives exist that would reduce the need for a variance. <br /> <br />2. Due to the City's Pavement Management Program and the reconstruction of Matilda <br />Street, Mr. Dansare was required to apply for a variance if he wanted to keep his <br />driveway in its current location. <br /> <br />3. Relocating the access point to meet the 30 foot setback would require major <br />modifications to the existing driveway as it extends to the garage. <br /> <br />Resolution 9659 - Page 1 of 2 <br />